This
case arises out of a collision between a City of San Antonio
police vehicle and a pickup truck in which appellees Patrick
Torres and Johnnie Dears were passengers. In this
interlocutory appeal, the City of San Antonio contends the
trial court erred by denying its plea to the jurisdiction
based on the emergency exception to the waiver of immunity in
the Texas Tort Claims Act. We hold the trial court did not
err in denying the City's plea.

Background

Patrick
Torres and Johnnie Dears were passengers in a truck traveling
eastbound on Nolan Street in San Antonio. As the truck
entered the intersection at Mittman, it was struck by a
vehicle driven by San Antonio police officer Francisco
Galvan. Officer Galvan was driving southbound on Mittman
without his emergency lights or sirens activated, and he
failed to heed the stop sign at the intersection of Mittman
and Nolan, resulting in the collision. Officer Galvan
testified he was responding to an "officer in
trouble" call. Torres and Dears sued the City of San
Antonio for personal injury damages, alleging that Officer
Galvan negligently caused the collision. The City filed a
plea to the jurisdiction, asserting its governmental immunity
from suit had not been waived because at the time of the
collision, Officer Galvan was responding to an emergency
situation, his actions were in compliance with the applicable
statutes and ordinances, and he did not act with conscious
indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others.
See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §
101.055 (West 2011). Torres and Dears amended their petition
and responded to the plea. After a hearing, the trial court
denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction and this
interlocutory appeal followed. See id. §
51.014(a)(8) (West Supp. 2016).

On
appeal, the City argues the trial court erred because (1)
Torres and Dears failed to plead facts demonstrating
jurisdiction exists, (2) the City presented sufficient
evidence to support its plea that Galvan complied with
applicable laws and did not act with conscious indifference
or recklessly in responding to an emergency, and (3) Torres
and Dears failed to present evidence raising a fact issue
regarding the jurisdictional facts.

Governmental
Immunity and Plea to the Jurisdiction

As a
governmental unit, the City is immune from suit unless that
immunity has been waived. Because governmental immunity
defeats a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction, it
is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction. See
Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133
S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex. 2004). The Texas Tort Claims Act
waives governmental immunity for claims for personal injury
arising from the operation or use of a vehicle if the
government employee would be personally liable to the
claimant according to Texas law. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code Ann. § 101.021(1) (West 2011). However, the Act
modifies that waiver of immunity when the claim arises
"from the action of an employee while responding to an
emergency call or reacting to an emergency situation."
Id. § 101.055(2). The governmental unit's
immunity is not waived in those cases if the employee's
"action is in compliance with the laws and ordinances
applicable to emergency action, or in the absence of such law
or ordinance, if the action is not taken with conscious
indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of
others." Id.

The
laws applicable to emergency vehicles allow the operator of
an authorized emergency vehicle to exceed the maximum speed
limit "as long as the operator does not endanger life or
property, " and to proceed past a stop sign "after
slowing as necessary for safe operation." Tex. Transp.
Code Ann. § 546.001(2), (3) (West 2011). Although the
operator of an emergency vehicle has a duty to operate the
vehicle "with appropriate regard for the safety of all
persons, " liability is imposed only for reckless
conduct. Id. § 546.005(1); City of Amarillo
v. Martin, 971 S.W.2d 426, 429-230 (Tex. 1998)
(interpreting Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 6701d, § 24(e),
repealed by Act of May 1, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 165,
§§ 1, 24, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 1025, 1870 (current
version at Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 546.001-.005)). An
operator of an emergency vehicle is reckless if he commits an
act he knows or should know poses a high degree of risk of
serious injury. Martin, 971 S.W.2d at 430.

A plea
to the jurisdiction may assert the plaintiff failed to allege
facts demonstrating the court's jurisdiction to hear the
case and may also challenge the existence of jurisdictional
facts. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226-27. We review the
challenge to the pleadings to determine whether the
plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to affirmatively
demonstrate the trial court's jurisdiction to hear the
case. Id. at 226. In our review, we construe the
pleadings liberally in the plaintiffs' favor and look to
the pleaders' intent. Id.

When
the plea challenges jurisdictional facts that are
inextricably bound to the merits of the controversy, the
trial court must examine the evidence presented and determine
if a fact issue exists. Id. at 227. The procedure
and our review mirror that of summary judgment practice.
See id. at 228. Initially, the governmental unit
"carries the burden to meet the summary judgment proof
standard for its assertion that the trial court lacks
jurisdiction." Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v.
Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 635 (Tex. 2012). If the
governmental unit presents evidence meeting that burden, the
plaintiffs must show there is a disputed material fact
regarding the jurisdictional issue. Id. "If the
evidence creates a fact question regarding the jurisdictional
issue, then the trial court cannot grant the plea to the
jurisdiction, and the fact issue will be resolved by the fact
finder. However, if the relevant evidence is undisputed or
fails to raise a fact question on the jurisdictional issue,
the trial court rules on the plea to the jurisdiction as a
matter of law." Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227-28.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;We
review de novo the trial court&#39;s ruling on the plea to
the jurisdiction. Id. at 228. We take as true all
evidence favorable to the nonmovant and indulge every
reasonable inference ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.